posted
Foundling, maybe you haven't noticed this, but most of our soldiers come back from war alive and unharmed (at least physically). So being a soldier isn't about throwing your life away. There is a historically recognized distinct difference between putting your life in harm's way and flying a plane with you in it into a ship. Tom certainly seemed to be writing within the context of our cultural historical perspective otherwise I don't know how he can make the claim, "Throughout history, this has been considered..."
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if someone didn't get outraged and indignant when someone accused them of willing pain and suffering on our soldiers I would find something very wrong with that.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now, I'll give you snotty, but I really cant see the hypocritical. I mean, it's not like I said none of my posts were going to be condescending, did I? No. So, while it was a tad snarky, it was nothing but truth. NFL is more than welcome to just try and ignore anything he finds offensive about my posts. So are you, for that matter. And, if you'll notice, he did start the snottyness. Implying that I was about to go off on an emotional tangent indeed. So Boris, while defending your buddy is an admirable quality, I would stop trying to save him from snarkyness he so richly deserves. It'll only make it harder for him in the long run.
I don't think anyone deserves Snarkyness. And I really don't even KNOW NFL. I just find it very wrong to belittle someone's comments by saying they are ignorant or condescending. I honestly don't see the condescending tone in his posts. My only argument with what you just said is that you could have easilly been very civil about it but you chose not to be. This is the point when discussion turns to argument. I think the both of you are getting a little too serious about this.
To put my response in perspective, you honestly came off as saying, "You know, nfl, I'm better than you and you're an ignorant fool because you don't believe the same things I do." That's foolishness in itself.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boris, I find it very wrong to belittle someones posts by telling them their ideas are misguided.
"You seem to have a real desire to make life as difficult as possible for the people who keep us safe. Before you raise your voice in furious indignation, I do believe you have altruistic reasons. However, those reasons are seriously misguided."
I also find it immensely annoying, as I'm sure most people do. Now, nfl could have said "I BELIEVE your reasons are seriosly misguided", making it a personal opinion, which he has every right to. However, he made it a statement of fact. Misguided means : led or prompted by wrong or inappropriate motives or ideals So, he was saying that my strongly held ideals about the imperfections of warfare are either wrong, or innappropriate. And, he said this in as snotty a manner as possible. So, I have no problem responding to snottiness with snottiness. It's better than telling someone to go to hell. It might not be conducive to maintaining a civil conversation, but then, I never said I wanted to have a civil conversation with someone who is so consistently condescending to others. And, if you'll notice, nfl has stuck to the original point of the thread, instead of responding to my snarkiness, which is more than I can say for myself. Or you, for that matter, Boris.
I dont see how I came off calling nfl an ignorant fool. I thought it was the other way around. You know, the whole misguided thing and all. Just because I am open about how much I have disagreed with nfl, doesnt mean I expect him or her to have the same ideas as I do. I give respect to those who are willing to do the same. To those who arent, I give sarcasm and snarkiness. Like I said, it's better than getting angry and swearing at them:).
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, you should know that almost everything is an opinion whether its stated or not as such. Even going by definition, facts can be disputed which means that people, especially when it comes to politics, have different opinions on which facts are correct or relevant. In other words, if you were to tell me that you didn't believe that my views were misguided, I would call you a liar since you pretty have said as much already.
In conclusion, you're making a big issue out of an omitted word which I think was implied.
For the record I said in my post that I believed your motives were just, but that your beliefs on what to do about those motives were misguided. So considering that another, more appropriate definition of misguided would be "Based or acting on error; misled: well-intentioned but misguided efforts; misguided do-gooders."- American Heritage Dictionary
quote: To those who arent, I give sarcasm and snarkiness.
I always thought it more of an idealistic coup to respond to sarcasm with sincere kindness.
Anyway, in response, his words, "It seems like" are a good bit of a qualifier that you completely ignored. He wasn't saying that you hold this opinion, but rather that your wording is making it seem, to him, that you DO have that opinion. That isn't in any way an attempt to belittle you. He's stating his opinion of what you said. Now, you did, however, very specifically say that his point of view was "Warped" and that his comments were ignorant. This is a bit of an over-reaction, I think. Perhaps you should have gotten him to understand your comments before condemning his as ignorant and condescending.
I fully understand your view that killing from 10 miles away is de-humanizing. But showing people the awful reality of death and war isn't going to keep it from happening. When the machine gun was invented, the inventor hoped to end war by making it so bloody that no one would want to do it. It didn't work like that. There is no way to prevent people from going to war. If it isn't our country, it's any number of other countries. And really, the root of your argument is that war shouldn't happen. I WISH things could be that easy. But they aren't, and any way we can keep our soldiers from dying in a war is a good thing in my book. Frankly, I didn't hear any arguments like this when the Police started using robots to prevent loss of life. Why do you argue that it is bad for our military to use it?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... Thanks, nfl. That puts a whole new spin on what you were really saying. And, for the record, you didnt say just, you said altruistic, which could be seen as just, or it could be seen as hyperemotional misguided crap. Just for the record.
More than anything else, I think this issue comes down to a very basic difference in ideaolgies. And, like I said before, nfl, our ideas are very disimilar. That doesnt mean I think you are automatically wrong, it simply means that much of what I say to you will be seen as pointless drivel, and vice versa. It's like Charlie Browns parents talking to each other, with only certain words coming through. Whuwhuwhuwhu....liberal...whuwhuwhuwhu....budget cuts....
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also for the record, unless I'm being sarcastic which will be fairly obvious and usually illustrated with a " ," I use "altruistic" when describing the actions of our soldiers, of the passengers that crashed the plane in Pennsylvania, and in reference to generally positively motivated actions.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Regardless I don't even think its realistic that robots will be out of the hands of the military before we'll have gone through much more important societal changes making your points moot.
newfoundlogic, this is weasling and you know it. We aren't talking about other societal changes or dangers in this thread, not nuclear winter or global warming or my receding hairline (tragic though that is ) We are talking about the potential for the misuse of robots, which you keep dismissing out of hand, but is a real potential.
Also, soldiers in any army, including ours, are human (at least until March), with human frailties. They can be bribed, and they can snap.
I remember at least one incident where a M-1 Abrams stolen by a soldier IIRC [edit:just saw another webpage that said he was a retired soldier] rampaged around on the highway in California.
quote:Dr. Adler, in his book, documented two cases of soldiers running amok with a tank in Germany in the 1980's after a widely publicized tank attack there. Army security was increased, and "tank amok never happened in Germany again," Dr. Adler said.
I wanted to cut that last sentence out, but let's be fair--it is rare, as you pointed out on page one, but military weapons, even tanks and bombers, are stolen and misused by US soldiers. Dr. Adler, a psychiatrist who wrote a book on multiple murders, even had a term for it: tank amok. I don't have a link, but didn't a pilot go missing with an armed A-8 or A-10 in Colorado a few years ago? I think the verdict was he commiteed suicide with the bomber, but I could be wrong.
quote: They [multiple or rampage killers] are not drunk or high on drugs. They are not racists or Satanists, or addicted to violent video games, movies or music.
Most are white men, but a surprising number are women, Asians and blacks. Many have college degrees, but most are unemployed.Many are military veterans.
posted
Robots will also be an excellent tool to clean the streets of the riff-raff in crowd-control operations, in the US or else where.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Morbo, do you know the level of robotics we're at these days?
No, but I could ballpark it.
I'm worried about the potential for misuse of deadly robots, not this early prototype, as I have said more than once in the thread.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, what you're missing is that all these human frailties that could lead to the "disappearance" of some of those robots all apply to the very soldiers in the field right now. They are just as capable of making a mistake and killing a civilian as they are of using a robot to kill a civilian.
As has already been pointed out, I think a reason for those high number of killers being military men is PTSD which could be greatly alleviated by removing them from the scene of battle.
What it comes down to, is that my ultimate priority is to make the military more effective and reduce the casualties of our soldiers.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: What it comes down to, is that my ultimate priority is to make the military more effective and reduce the casualties of our soldiers.
The same logic justified the developement of nuclear weapons, and look at where we are now vis-a-vis nuclear proliferation to rogue states or terrorist groups. [edit to add: And killer robots are much, much simpler tech than nuclear bombs. High schoolers compete with robots, albeit w/out rocket launchers.]
That's a good point that these robots could potentially reduce PTSD among vets, I hadn't thought of that.
I brought up the bribing of soldiers, tank amok rampages and that pilot that disappeared with his A-6 only to refute the point you and others brought up that basically "it's all good, because the DoD will control all the robots now and for the foreseeable future." This is not true.
Even assuming the US military keeps tight security on their technology, other countries and corporations have as much or more robotics tech as we do. And they won't be idle. We could even see a new robot arms race--a Waldo Race! Bwhahahaha I just coined that.
posted
Nuclear weapons would have gotten out whether or not we developed them. Both the Soviets and the Germans were already trying to develop them during World War II. Would the Soviets have been as fast if they didn't see Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Probably not, but it certainly would have happened anyways and at least we were ahead of the game (until Sputnik). You're point about corporations knowing more about robotics proves this point as this knowledge with be proliferated regardless of military development. So a robot arms race isn't out of the question, but I don't think our involvement in it will reduce the likelihood of it occurring.
Not only are cases of M-1s going missing rare, but then they do they are usually recovered. I expect recovery will improve with technology especially considering advancements that allow battlefield commanders to know where all of their units are at a given time.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: A robot cannon began wildly and autonomously firing its huge gun in South Africa last Friday, killing 9 soldiers and wounding 14. The Oerlikon GDF-005 antiaircraft gun suddenly began uncontrollably shooting as it swung back and forth, spraying hundreds of high-explosive 35mm cannon shells all over the place.
posted
I saw that, Morbo! Isn't that horrible? I can't imagine what sort of bug would cause that. That just gives me nightmares, thinking about working on a project that messes up and kills people. =(
Gizmodo is a great site, though. I check it every day.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, the Kamikazes aren't considered heroic, they're considered to stupid and crazy. At least in our culture, its considered a mark of fanaticism to throw your life away for a cause and make yourself a martyr.
No, the Kamikaze pilots got a good rap in the long lens of history.
They were not considered stupid, but fanatical, heroic, and tragic.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
," I use "altruistic" when describing the actions of our soldiers, of the passengers that crashed the plane in Pennsylvania, and in reference to generally positively motivated actions.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
) We are talking about the potential for the misuse of robots, which you keep dismissing out of hand, but is a real potential.![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
I just coined that.
